DEAR DIARY – TODAY I WAS AT A FULL COUNCIL MEETING

I still can’t get over the fact that people don’t understand that a blog is, in essence, a modern-day diary. They’re moaning and whining on Facebook that I write only about how I see the council. Yeah. They are sour about me, keeping myself as close to the literary form I exercise as possible. It’s like complaining that the sun is hot.

Never mind that, diary! Let’s focus on how I saw the events of the last STC Full Council meeting. A few household items straight out of the gate:
Newly co-opted councillor? Not present.
Town Clerk? Not present.
Residents’ questions part? Not present. Skipped, not answered, not even mentioned by the Chair. The agenda and national legislation clearly force councils to have time allocated for this, yet law under Labour is just a suggestion. I have confirmation from the Town Clerk’s Assistant that my questions were passed on, yet this is third Chair of STC who decided to skip that bit like a bunny. Or maybe Assistant lied to me and didn’t pass my questions? Who cares, right? Its not like I have tendency to ask questions based on evidence and documents…
Voting? The Chair went back to old Labour habits and instead of clearly stating what they are voting on, he just repeats: “let’s vote on that.”

Councillors activity chart:


IF YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT LENGHT OF THIS REPORT…
…imagine how much it takes to compile, draft, prepare pictures and graphics, edit and publish it. I know- it’s my choice to work for you, and you are fully justified if you don’t want to read it. But read at least the intro, please?

If even that is too much, I can sum up the entire meeting in one sentence: Reform and Independents are doing the work, fixing the issues, while Labour… is there. Labour is literally USING the opposition for work while 90-year-old Fred Gobey didn’t speak a single word and 93-year-old Brian Murray-Carr looked confused and lost like Biden for most of the meeting.

AGENDA?
Packed to the brim. Discussed so hard that STC had to suspend Standing Orders to extend the length of the meeting. I was kicked out of the room at 20:59 — a minute before the legally enforced end of the meeting. And there was still a huge issue left to discuss. Guests? Only me and some representatives from BDC regarding an exempt (secret) issue. In essence- I was sole representative of the residents.

TENSION IS GONE, SHIREBROOK IS BACK ASLEEP
When Labour tried to pimp out the Village Hall, the STC chamber was packed at every meeting. Residents were ready to riot. Labour tried to sell us out and they paid the price for it. For a moment, people were so engaged that I couldn’t get into a few meetings because the room was at capacity. I kissed the door handle and went home. But now, with new councillors and an allegedly new approach, residents have gone back to sleep. The tension is gone.

FEW BRIGHT POINTS
I’ll be honest — as much as I enjoy the new STC, I’m severely disappointed by residents. Really? No one wants to look at how money is spent? Not even the newly co-opted councillor? How about this: in January alone, STC recorded an £80,000 deficit. They spent £80k more than they earned while residents watched Love Island. This deficit is 10% of all tax income. Gone. In one month.

Are you really fine with that? There were a few more revelations worth mentioning, like 9 mobile contracts for STC employees. Really? Nine? One of opposition councillors, Oliver Kershaw-Dickson, is trying to cut that expense and openly admitted — in a very diplomatic way — and I quote: “he is still waiting for information from Jenny and James.”

If you don’t know who Jenny and James are — you know nothing. Jenny is the Town Clerk and James is her brother. The Town Clerk hired him with the blessing of the Labour Party, and then the Labour Party gave him a 27% pay rise. Those two run the other side of Labour’s cover operations in STC. Those two are a big part of this £80,000 deficit.

DON’T GET ME WRONG. THERE IS CHANGE.
Still, I enjoy the new STC. Apart from the Labour Party family and the Town Clerk family, a few councillors are doing a really great job. So many of the issues I raised in the past are being raised again, discussed, and changed. A whole cornucopia of problems I flagged in the past on my blog are being actively sorted. The Post — no more leeching on residents. Maintenance of the Leisure Centre — discussed. Digitalisation of STC — already started. Deficit and spending — discussed, not swept under the carpet until the next tax rise. In all of this, I’m missing only one thing: an audit of the pellet system.

For some reason all councillors — Reform Party, Independents, Labour, SOS/ST — avoid it like fire. It’s as if the spending chart below is a thing of the past and that net-zero contract is gone. But it’s not. Nothing has changed. Well — actually, Oliver Kershaw-Dickson did ask about two pellet invoices sent to STC in one month, and once again the STC Assistant confirmed that everything with the pellets is “done automatically.” I would ask: so how come that in the summer of 2024 we bought more pellets than half of the yearly need in 2022? That must have been a cold summer. Just look at this chart and remember — nothing will be fixed as long as those who allowed it are still in STC:


DEAR DIARY. HOW ABOUT SOME DETAILS?
The report will be dry, written as a stream of thoughts. I don’t have time to listen to the recording to confirm missing figures and votes. I’m trying to finish my book, and every minute spent on STC feels to me like time wasted. Labour-dominated STC clearly see me as a trash — gammon, working-class nobody — rather than the voice of common sense and common people.

So until I finish the first draft of my new book, I will take my “blog duties” less seriously. Don’t be scared away — there is still some explosive stuff in the report, and if you like to be informed, I bet you will enjoy reading it.

Again- this is rough draft, not edited much, not polished in my usual way.

FIRST AGENDA ITEM — SKIPPED
The residents’ questions section was skipped without a word of explanation from the Labour Party Chair. I complained about Chris Kane and Paul Harford, but at least they gave residents 10 minutes to ask questions. Dale Smith completely abandoned that legal requirement. Shame!

2026/015 TO RECEIVE APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND TO APPROVE THE REASONS FOR THOSE ABSENCES.
As usual, seating is one of the most interesting things for a seasoned observer like me. There are some councillors who are still floating from seat to seat between meetings, but for the most part, all of them have settled into their seats. The only big change was Shelley Arapi, who moved from the right side to the left side — and I suspect it was my fault. At the last meeting, I sat right behind her and, since I have no mercy for my keyboard, I type loudly and fast, and I think it was distracting to her. So she floated away from my position.

Out of 14 councillors, only one was missing — the councillor whose name I don’t remember, as the STC website hasn’t been updated following his co-option. I have already collected some interesting information about him. It raised some red flags on my radar, but for now, let’s give him a chance to respond to my email before I show it to anyone. (I will send the email once the town updates the website and his email address is listed.)

2026/016 TO RECEIVE AND NOTE DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PERTAINING TO THE AGENDA ITEMS LISTED.
Two declarations: Michael Yates declared an interest in item 020/e — donations; and Andrew Stevens declared an interest but did not specify in which item. We will return to that later.

2026/017 TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL HAVING BEEN HELD ON THE 18TH OF FEBRUARY 2026.
Here Martin Barber had an issue. He strongly objected to the word “refuted” being used in relation to him in the matter of… well, it would take a while to write about now, and I’ve already described it before.

In short: it concerns one of the meetings in 2025. Martin Barber wanted to discuss something and was insistent about it. The then-Chair, Sarah Brooks, tried to convince him that the matter could not be discussed publicly as it concerned an STC employee, but Martin Barber persisted. At one point, Sarah Brooks left the room in order to break the quorum and end the discussion. I was at that meeting — in my opinion, the whole situation arose from a lack of experience among the councillors and could have been resolved in a much more favourable way for all parties. Water under the bridge. But still — I had great difficulty understanding what Cllr Barber was getting at, and it came down to a single word. That word is “refute.”

I have never hidden the fact that I am not a native speaker. I taught myself English, and despite living in the UK for 20 years, I still have blindspots (who hasn’t, right?). There are still words I have to learn. Sometimes I understand the meaning from context; sometimes I have to look it up in a dictionary. The problem is that the single English word “refute” can be interpreted into 58 different words and phraseological units.

Few main ones are: obalić, odeprzeć, podważyć, zaprzeczyć, sfalsyfikować.

But there are also a bunch of interpretive ones like: wykazać nieprawdziwość, wykazać bezzasadność, wykazać sprzeczność, wykazać błędność, dowodnie wykazać nieprawdziwość, zdyskredytować argument, zakwestionować zasadność, zbić argument, zbić twierdzenie, rozbroić argument, rozsypać argumentację, roznieść w pył argument, rozmontować tezę, rozłożyć na czynniki pierwsze, zdemolować czyjąś tezę, zgnieść argument, zmasakrować argumentację, rozprawić się z argumentem, rozprawić się z zarzutem, obalić twierdzenie, obalić teorię, obalić zarzut, obalić argument, obalić hipotezę, odeprzeć zarzuty, odeprzeć atak słowny, odeprzeć oskarżenia, podważyć wiarygodność, podważyć zasadność, podważyć argument, stanowczo zaprzeczyć, przeprowadzić falsyfikację, oddalić zarzut, obalić oskarżenie, wykazać bezpodstawność roszczenia, zanegować twierdzenie, zakwestionować dowody, wykazać brak podstaw, wykazać brak zasadności, złożyć kontrargument, przedstawić kontrdowody, wytknąć błąd, pokazać, że ktoś się myli, udowodnić, że to nieprawda, udowodnić, że ktoś bredzi, zgasić czyjąś teorię, przeciąć temat, zamknąć dyskusję, unieważnić, uczynić nieważnym, zdemaskować mit, obalić mit, skontrować.

Yeah, my native language is complicated, which is why sometimes I have to go with my instinct when listening to someone speak. In this case, I did a quick dictionary search on the computer I was using to take notes during the meeting. Here is how I see it: Martin Barber was moving to reject or amend the minutes, because they presented events differently from how he saw them. He also argued that there were more people in the room and that other individuals could confirm his version of events.

I understand the frustration of Cllr Martin Barber — I was in the same position. The minutes of STC sometimes tend to… edit events in a more or less favourable way. I was a victim of that too. Moving on.

2026/018 TO RECEIVE INFORMATION IN RELATION TO THE OUTSIDE BODIES WHICH THE TOWN COUNCIL CAN APPOINT REPRESENTATIVES TO – CLLR. DONNA HALES AND ARRON JOHNSON OF BOLSOVER DISTRICT COUNCIL IN ATTENDANCE TO ASSIST WITH THIS AGENDA ITEM.
All 4 items were moved to a later meeting. I didn’t catch the reason. I have no idea why Bolsover Partnership has this weird notation. Did they dissolve it? No idea. Maybe a BDC councillor in the chamber could help us… oh wait! All Labour and ex-Labour BDC councillors ignore STC meetings. They never come.
i. BOLSOVER PARTNERSHIP (2) ** NO LONGER REQUIRED**
ii. PLEASLEY CONSERVATION GROUP (2)
iii. BDC PARISH COUNCIL LIAISON (1)
iv. NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH LIAISON (1) – CLLR. B MURRAY-CARR

2026/019 TO REVIEW AND APPROVE FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Small note before we start this bit: I dropped all financial discussion into one point.
David Downes asked about a payment to BDC in the amount of £6,700. The councillor said that the document showed no details as to what the payment was for. Here I must underline something for the first time — something I will have to underline many times: I am not a councillor. When councillors discuss documents, I don’t have copies in front of me. In 100% of cases I have to guess what the document is about, what the problem is, and sometimes even what solution has been proposed.

This is a huge difference compared to when I was a councillor and could not only show readers the documents, but understood them as they were being discussed. Now I am like a child in the fog — I know nothing. I guess at everything. I think Labour prefers exactly this situation — when I have no access to documents.

During the discussion, the words “grass cutting” came up. The STC Assistant noted that half of this payment was a chargeback, as they had billed us for work carried out for Langwith. Personally, I thought STC had its own tractor and grass cutter, but it appears this is another thing I don’t know the details of. All I know is that something doesn’t add up here, because I recall that in my time STC contracted grass cutting to a company that was rather “friendly” to Labour. No quotes — shocker

David Downes asked about a payment related to the Leisure Centre. Again — I have no access to the documents, and the councillor didn’t mention the sum or who it was paid to. I tried to work it out from the discussion. I couldn’t. I have no idea what he was referring to.

Oliver Kershaw-Dickson asked about not one but two invoices from AMP — our net-zero pellet supplier. Two invoices, two days apart: the 7th and the 8th. I consider myself an expert on this matter and would have asked far more questions. The councillors accepted the explanation that “everything is automatic” and moved on.

At this point, Steven Andrews once again highlighted the need to review and renegotiate certain contracts and, furthermore, revealed the exact income and expenditure figures for STC in January 2026. Hold onto your seat: Andrew Stevens revealed that the deficit — in that one month alone — exceeded £80,000 by a significant margin. (I won’t go looking for the exact figure — £80k should frighten you enough, particularly if you’re aware that as taxpayers we contribute £800,000 a year into the STC coffers.) This is the state the previous Labour administration left this town in. Disgrace!

David Downes asked about an insurance payment. He didn’t mention the sum, so I can’t compare what we’re paying for insurance now versus when I was a councillor. That would be interesting, wouldn’t it? Well, Labour doesn’t want me to have access to any documents, so… we will never know. What did catch my attention, however, was the fact that the Assistant said we pay the insurance in two instalments. I don’t recall that arrangement from my time, though I can’t be certain. Back then, the insurance was small enough that it flew under my radar.

Shaun Cheeseman asked something — and once again he spoke so quietly that I only caught “water tanks, page 1.” The discussion clarified things somewhat: it was a fairly substantial payment to a company that inspects and maintains the water tanks in the Leisure Centre.

Michael Yates — once again he asked something that he should already know, having been a councillor before. He asked whether NNDR is paid annually or monthly. I’d wager that he saw for the first time how much we pay for the Leisure Centre and was alarmed. And the best part is that what he saw was just one of ten monthly instalments.

Let me put it this way: the tax alone on the Leisure Centre is half the January town’s deficit. Add to that wages, corruption, nepotism, net-zero deals, shady contracts… yeah.

Shelley Arapi noticed a stock take on liquor in the bar at the Leisure Centre. Fun fact — I never wrote about this before, but when I was a councillor, I noticed highly unusual patterns in the income and booze delivery costs at the Leisure Centre. I know — Labour doesn’t care about it. Cost of deliveries multiple times higher than the entire income? No problem. Don’t look there, don’t think about it, don’t ask questions. Well, Shelley Arapi asked — and the answer from the Town Clerk’s Assistant was: no data at hand, I can send it later. Councillors — if you want to find something interesting, look at the booze deliveries between May 2023 and May 2025. Then compare that cost to the Leisure Centre income. 😉

Ah! I forgot! The Labour Party told me not to talk about issues and to focus on positive things! Sorry. So, so, so sorry.

Shaun Cheeseman asked about mobile phones. How many does STC have? The question was answered by Oliver Kershaw-Dickson, who had spoken to STC staff about the matter and told the chamber that STC currently has 9 mobile phone contracts. The Assistant said that each head of department has a phone. That shocked me. LC, cemetery, market, town hall — that’s 4 departments. What are the other 5?

Shaun Cheeseman asked why plus £4,000 minus £2,000 equals minus £2,000. The answer was that there was no answer. This question required a great deal of time to explain. The Town Clerk completely lost it — if you could just hear it. I bet she was all red in her home. That is the reason why she doesn’t want to show her face at meetings. She knows she would be caught in moments like that.

Oliver Kershaw-Dickson tried to clarify matters, because the Town Clerk’s explanations sounded like the ramblings of someone utterly lost — even though they were being read out by the Assistant. Her words simply made no sense, and made no sense to most people in the room, because ultimately it was Councillor Oliver Kershaw-Dickson who explained the matter. Unfortunately, without the documents in front of me, I have no idea what was actually being discussed. The vote to approve this item passed.

Here I noticed something amusing. On multiple occasions, Dale Smith declared that a vote had passed unanimously, but in at least three instances I observed Councillor Shelley Arapi not raising her hand — as though she wished to vote differently or abstain. I even think she noticed at one point that I was watching her as the Chair called the vote, the majority of councillors raised their hands, and Councillor Arapi sat there as if she wanted to vote differently, which the Chair didn’t notice and simply moved on. An interesting observation.

Michael Yates highlighted that he was surprised by the low income that month (January). Well, councillor — if you want to be even more surprised, let me tell you about the net-zero contracts signed by your party.

Shelley Arapi proposed taking a closer look at the payment system problems at the Leisure Centre. I wrote about this a long time ago when I was a councillor, and the situation hasn’t changed in the slightest. In short: the Leisure Centre has to accept part of its income in cash, because the card payment system in the bar doesn’t cover payments for other things (???).

Neil Bradbury proposed taking a closer look at cash and card payments, particularly given that there are fewer and fewer cash machines in our town. Councillors decided to refer the matter to the Leisure Committee.

Shaun Cheeseman — another question about councillor training for better understanding of financial reports, the cashbook, and when Scribe will be installed. Councillors decided to return to the matter once Scribe has been installed and rolled out.

Someone started a discussion on a topic while I was noting down the result of the previous item. I failed to record what was being discussed; I only managed to note that the Council decided not to notify suppliers to begin work until the Council had received all quotes. I apologise again — I don’t have time to check the audio, but I believe the discussion concerned quotes for the renovation or construction of new pitches at the Leisure Centre. In the same discussion, Andrew Stevens emphasised that the council wants to receive more quotes before deciding which company to select. Neil Bradbury proposed referring the entire matter to the Leisure Committee. Voted through.

Shelley Arapi asked about drainage on the current pitch, and during the discussion it emerged that — OK, I need to write this as I understood it: either the drainage has stopped working, or the previous administration never thought about it and it was never installed in the first place, which puts the pitch out of use whenever it rains. I don’t know which of the two is correct.

a. TO REVIEW CASH BOOK ENTRIES SINCE PREVIOUS MEETING AND ADDRESS ANY QUERIES PRIOR TO AUTHORISING – 1ST OF JANUARY 2026 TO 31ST OF JANUARY 2026.
The councillors’ contributions from this section I have combined with those from the previous item — with the exception of Fred Gobey, who did not say a single word throughout the entire two hours.
b. TO REVIEW AND AUTHORISE BANK RECONCILIATION/S FOR CASH BOOK PERIOD.
As above.
c. TO REVIEW AND AUTHORISE THE SUM-UP BREAKDOWN REPORT FOR CASH BOOK PERIOD.
As above.
d. TO REVIEW AND AUTHORISE VIREMENT REPORT FOR SHIREBROOK LEISURE CENTRE.
A long discussion about a document I have no access to, so for a long time I had no idea what was being discussed. At one point I was so lost that I once again used a translator to better understand the word “virement.”

In general terms, it refers to a pool of money in a government organisation’s accounts that is moved from one pot to another in order to cover something that has “suddenly come up.”

I’m not sure whether that is the correct definition. Here is what I understood: the discussion concerned certain expenditures and increasing the reserve set aside for them. After a moment, I gathered from the flow of the discussion that the councillors suspect the previous administrations neglected maintenance of the Leisure Centre so badly that the current administration fears the repair costs will be significantly higher than originally anticipated. What was cut in order to add to the Leisure Centre budget? I don’t know.

One thing I do know — Shirebrook is like the Titanic. It’s sinking, but the orchestra plays on. The Leisure Centre accounts for more than half of the town’s expenditure. To me, that is pure insanity. Zero for youth, zero for the elderly, zero for safety, zero for out-of-the-box projects — but money for the Leisure Centre? Always there. And when I write the word “there,” I mean your pocket. Even if you never use the LC facilities.

e. TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE APPLICATIONS FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.
i. JUNCTION ARTS – COMMUNITY ARTS PROJECT – £1,950.00
ii. CITIZENS ADVICE – RUNNING COSTS – £2,500.00
From my point of view, a council that has just recorded an £80k deficit should not be handing out money. The Assistant relayed a message from the Town Clerk stating that, under law, STC is permitted to spend up to £107,000 per year on payments under Section 137 and this was so bureaucratic moment- people saying that we drowning, yet, Public Servant underlining that we can spend money anyway.

I think both causes are noble. But STC is drowning. We just can’t afford to give away the money.

I don’t know how the vote went. Chair said: let’s vote on that and… that’s it. The vote passed at the 44-minute mark of the recording — I noted the timestamp to check later, but I don’t have time to look for that moment, so — maybe the £4k was approved, maybe it wasn’t. Who knows? Not me. I’m not allowed to ask questions.

2026/020 TO CONSIDER RESPONSES AS NECESSARY TO LISTED CORRESPONDENCE.
a. LANGWITH PARISH COUNCIL – TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT.
Over a councillor’s shoulder I could see that STC had received some letter bearing the LTC logo. I don’t know what it was about, but Andrew Stevens said it needed to be referred to the Personnel Committee. Neil Bradbury mentioned that it generates additional costs (???). Shaun Cheeseman and Ricky Holland also spoke — in details I have no way of connecting to anything.

The phrase “number of hours of that individual” was uttered. At the 47-minute mark — a response from the Town Clerk. I am completely lost. The councillors are too. They asked for the explanation to be repeated because what the Assistant read out made no sense. A lot of time passed. They are talking about some contract. A contract nobody had seen. The councillors want to see the contract (good luck with that).

Shaun Cheeseman proposed looking at the agreement to find out why it had been — terminated? Extended? Modified? I have absolutely no idea. At this point the Assistant again relayed a message from the Town Clerk. That response made my jaw drop.

The Town Clerk claims she has always worked for STC five days a week, but also worked every Friday for LTC. So she worked six days? Except she worked for STC on Fridays and for LTC on Fridays? The councillors are confused — her explanation makes no sense. It sounds as though she was working one day for TWO employers at the same time while collecting a salary from both.

How did it end? With a referral to the Labour-dominated Personnel Committee. The same one that hired her brother, the same one that tried to restore order and instruct the Town Clerk to attend Council meetings — which she apparently ignored. Or Labour allowed her to work from home so that opposition councillors would have no opportunity to see her in action?

b. ROYAL BRITISH LEGION.
Another letter, another discussion impossible to follow without the document. Something about a survey? I have no idea.

c. TB TREE CARE – TREE WORKS QUOTATION.
Something about Wednesday 17 March. The car park must be closed so the necessary works can be carried out. That was the first thing I heard, and immediately after, the Assistant added that this company has not only been the cheapest so far but is also local, which is why it was selected.

At that point a councillor interrupted — I didn’t note the initials and don’t have time to check the recording — asking about additional quotes, which suggests that on this occasion the company was selected without obtaining further quotes. Shaun Cheeseman recommended sticking to procedure and requesting 3 quotes, not because the company had done anything wrong, but simply because procedure requires 3 quotes to be obtained before work is commissioned.

Neil Bradbury noted that the matter needs to be dealt with quickly — at an express pace — as the nesting season is approaching. If it begins, they will have to wait until the following winter to commission and carry out the work.

Brian Murray-Carr mentioned that a tree survey was carried out under the previous administration and that many trees require immediate attention.

Andrew Stevens proposed referring the matter to the Operations Committee.

d. MARTIN LAMB – REQUEST FOR TREE WORKS.
A tree — most likely growing on STC land — has begun to pose a safety risk to property of one of the residents, who flagged the issue in a letter to STC. The councillors decided to address it immediately.

An interesting discussion arose on the subject of trees growing on STC-owned land. Apparently STC owns quite a lot of land. I didn’t know that. I mention it only as a curiosity. The councillors even suggested it would be useful to have a map showing the land belonging to STC and the trees on it.

e. DYLAN THOMAS – REQUEST FOR DONATION.
Michael Yates wanted to remain in the room and say nothing, despite having declared an interest in this matter. That is contrary to the law. However, when Councillor Andrew Stevens left the room, Michael Yates followed him out. That struck me as odd.

For a moment the councillors discussed a charity box, but I didn’t catch where. I didn’t note what decision was taken because Chair moved to next item without clearly stating it.

f. SHIRE BUILDING SUPPLIERS – REQUEST TO ADVERTISE.
Once again, for most of the discussion I sat listening and trying to work out what it was about. Without seeing the document, my chances of understanding are genuinely slim. The discussion was lively and many councillors got involved. I don’t want to speculate, but it seems to me that Shire Building Suppliers wanted to purchase advertising space on STC land. For a council drowning in deficit, that sounds like a valuable initiative from a local private business willing to help. The matter was ultimately moved to Operations.

g. DCC – PARKING ENFORCEMENT NOTICE.
Don’t park on double yellow lines. DCC has signalled that it finally intends to take action on this. Good. Driving through the western section of King Edward Street is usually an extremely dangerous stretch of the journey through town. This should change before something tragic happens there. You can park literally 30 metres further and walk to your fast food.

2026/021 TO CONSIDER MOTIONS / REQUESTS FROM ELECTED MEMBERS.
a. CLLR. MARTIN BARBER
i. TO CONSIDER CHANGING THE TOWN COUNCIL’S LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR ALL FUTURE PROJECTS.
Neil Bradford gave a lengthy speech about the problems introduced by the previous administration in cooperation with representatives of the law firm currently used by STC — principally the Village Hall affair. The councillor agreed with the proposal to change legal representation, with the caveat that the new representation should cover new projects, while existing matters should be completed by the current representatives.

Shaun Cheeseman expressed the opinion that the old representation had lost his trust following the Village Hall affair, and judging by the reaction in the room, he is not alone in that view.

Michael Yates gave a lengthy speech which echoed the same sentiments as Andrew Stevens.

The Council agreed to seek entirely new legal advisory services for all new and future projects.

b. CLLR. TONY BURNS (FORMER COUNCILLOR MOTIONS FROM PREVIOUS MEETING)
i. TO DISCUSS AND REVIEW LEISURE CENTRE CHARGES.
Andrew Stevens confirmed that the matter needs to be scrutinised but proposed referring it to the Leisure Committee. Council agreed.

ii. TO CONSIDER THE USE OF AN HONESTY BOX FOR THE FIREWORKS EVENT.
Shelley Arapi is in favour.

Neil Bradford — from his speech I gathered that he is trying to convince councillors of something self-evident: STC cannot afford free events such as fireworks. (I would add: Town Shows, Car Shows.) My question: does anyone know how much the fireworks cost? The answer? Only the Town Clerk and her family, who under the previous administration had essentially a free hand to spend whatever sums they liked on whatever purposes connected to “leisure events.” The staff costs alone for the fireworks balooned by over £20,000 in just one month. And I ask: how is that possible?

Michael Yates proposed making no decision for now and referring the matter to the appropriate committee.

Neil Bradford proposed looking for sponsors for future events. The proposal was referred for discussion to the Leisure Committee.

iii. TO DISCUSS THE USE OF TABLETS FOR ALL COUNCILLORS IN RELATION TO GOING PAPERLESS BY THE COUNCIL – CLLR. BURNS TO PRESENT COST IMPLICATIONS RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF THE TABLETS.
Here I am attaching a photo to show readers the sheer volume of paper produced by STC for every meeting. That white expanse in front of the councillors — that is all documents.

As you can see, they cover the entire table. And so it is at every meeting. When I was a councillor I asked for copies of all documents to be sent by email, but of course I was ignored. It seems that the twenty-first century is finally reaching STC. Councillors want to try moving documentation to tablets. The leading role in this section was taken by Cllr Oliver Kershaw-Dickson. He presented a report on the benefits of such a solution, the potential savings, and the legal pitfalls of the current system.

What’s more, he went a step further and presented a potential supplier who offered an obscenely attractive price — I know, because my tablet is older than my laptop and I’ve slowly been looking for a replacement, so when the councillor mentioned the price my jaw dropped, as it was significantly lower than the lowest price I had found for myself — mainly because STC would be buying the tablets in bulk.

Andrew Stevens supported the idea and said that it is a good idea in principle. Several other councillors also backed it, but ultimately it was decided that for now the tablets will go to committee chairs, who will test them, share their impressions, and only then will STC decide whether to equip all councillors with tablets.

It seems to me that the choice of how a councillor wishes to receive documents should be left to the councillor. Only those who prefer to receive documents electronically should get them that way. I bet old Labour will still prefer paper.

c. CLLR. ANDREW STEVENS: TO DISCUSS THE UPCOMING NJC PAY INCREASE.
Neil Bradbury proposed moving this matter to the exempt part of the meeting.

d. CLLR. OLIVER KERSHAW-DICKSON: TO DISCUSS POTENTIAL INTRODUCTION OF JOB PERFORMANCE REVIEWS AND KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR TOWN COUNCIL EMPLOYEES.
As above – moved to exempt.

I would love to see the Town Clerk’s job performance review. It should read something like this: I hired my brother with blessing of Labour Party; sometimes I delay publication of minutes by half a year or so; I concealed from councillors the extension of the bridge loan from BDC; I concealed from councillors correspondence with the office of the previous MP; I falsified numbers in the Finance Report 2022/23; I approved invoices containing mathematical errors, despite also holding the title of Responsible Finance Officer. I have a few more skeletons in the closet, but I think that’s a good start for another pay rise, don’t you think? Oh, and could I also have a taxpayer-funded Virgin gift voucher as a reward for my stellar performance?

2026/022 TO RECEIVE INFORMATION FROM THE TOWN CLERK.
a. LGPS EMPLOYER DISCRETIONS POLICY – TO REVIEW TEMPLATE PROVIDED AND PROVIDE INSTRUCTION TO CLERK IN RELATION TO INCLUSIONS – AUTHORISE TOWN CLERK AND CHAIRMAN TO FINALISE.
I have absolutely no idea what was discussed. Even the title of this agenda item explains very little. The worst part is that the vote was called with the usual “let’s vote on it.” I have no idea what was being voted on or what the vote decided.

b. TO RECEIVE UPDATE IN RELATION TO AUDIT PROVISION FOR 2025-2026.
i. TO AUTHORISE AUDITOR FOR 2025-2026
Of all the auditors contacted, only one replied. One of the councillors mentioned the quote, but I didn’t catch the price — I only noted that it looks like a good deal for a provider and demand for this type of services is so high that its hard to find provider.

The previous STC auditors missed invoices with incorrect figures, so I suspect they simply signed the paperwork and went to the pub fro a pint. No repercussions for mistake. So- it really looks like easy, high pay gig.

c. TO RECEIVE REPORT IN RELATION TO ALLOTMENT SECURITY AT THE PARK AVENUE SITE AND TO AUTHORISE ACTION REGARDING AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF ALLOCATING ACCESS TO THE SITE.
Moved to operations.

d. COMMUNITY RAIL PARTNERSHIP.
i. MEETING MINUTES – 28TH OF JANUARY 2026.
Approved.

ii. EAST MIDLANDS RAIL UPDATE.
??? I have nothing in notes.
iii. COMMUNITY RAIL NETWORK UPDATE.
??? I have nothing in notes.

e. ANESCO – YEAR 10 – SAVINGS REPORT.
No idea what that is. One of the councillors asked about a payment — an “access savings payment.” I couldn’t work out what it is. During the discussion, strange terms appeared such as “deficit payment.” “We can check the invoices and let you know.”

This is shocking to me — I was a councillor no more than 3 years ago and I never heard of a ten-year savings plan. Or perhaps it isn’t a savings plan at all, but some kind of expenditure. After all, the electricity bill at the LC is recorded as a “saving.” For a while there was discussion about which committee to refer the matter to. Three committee names were mentioned, but ultimately it was referred to the Finance Committee.

I was so confused listening to this section that when I got home from the meeting, I forced myself to listen to it again. I swear to God — I have no idea what it is.

f. BT MOBILE PHONES – CHANGE TO PROVIDER.
Oliver Kershaw-Dickson said that he is still waiting for information from Jenny and James (STC’s power couple). The councillor updated his fellow councillors on the progress of his work, confirming that he has not yet finished and that the matter needs to be revisited. He confirmed that STC has 9 SIM contracts, held mainly by department chairs. I didn’t know we had 9 departments in STC. 9 mobile contracts in council as small as STC. It’s just… silly.

g. SMART DIGITAL – COPIER CONTRACT SAVINGS.
The matter was deferred pending STC’s tablet trial. At this point Standing Orders were suspended and I left the room.

2026/023 TO APPROVE THE DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING OF THE TOWN COUNCIL.
The date for the next Ordinary Meeting of the Town Council is set as the 15th of April 2026, in accordance with the approved meeting schedule.

THE END
This time, I gave AI free rein to create an illustration. I came back a few minutes later and saw that in the illustration, there was smoke coming out of the laptop. I hope it’s not some kind of prophecy… although when I tried to prepare a video from the precept meeting, I smelled something burning, so… I gave up on video editing for now. Just to be safe 😉

Sylwester Zwierzynski info@shirebrook247.com